Xbox prototypes, and ethics in games journalism
I was working at The Verge in May 2013, when Microsoft held its event to announce the Xbox One. We had a pretty good idea of what to expect from the conference, but we weren't quite ready for what happened next. At exactly the same time, both Wired and Engadget published embargoed, behind-the-scenes articles about the Xbox One. Wired's focused on the console, Kinect and consumers. Engadget's on SoCs and development. I remember my colleague angrily snarling at the exclusive embargoes. I went back to hastily writing about Quantum Break.
The story of how Engadget got that embargo was revealed to the world yesterday, after ex-Engadget editor Ben Gilbert published an article on Business Insider. In it, Gilbert explains that Microsoft accidentally shipped an Xbox One prototype to a Miami resident, who later made contact with Engadget, tipping the site off to its existence and providing photos. Engadget never ran a story on these photos.
Later, Kotaku posted an article with additional comments from Gilbert. It suggested to me that Engadget had a story, and instead of publishing it, leveraged it to gain access to the Xbox One before launch. Taking in the two articles as a whole, there's an implication that Engadget persuaded a source to reveal themselves to Microsoft in exchange for access. That, to put it mildly, worried me deeply.
I joined in Engadget in the fall of 2014. Until yesterday, I was unaware of the Xbox One prototype. Speaking to my fellow employees, no one knew the full story. I began to dig into what exactly happened here three years ago. Initially I spoke with Gilbert, who declined to comment for this article, but did clarify a few details from his piece. Everyone directly involved in the decision-making process back then has left Engadget, but I've consulted with staff past and present, and this is the clearest timeline I have.
A rough timeline
On March 23rd 2013, Engadget received a tip titled "I have the xbox 720 krytos console beta version." After some conversation, the tipster, identified by Gilbert's article as Jia Li, sent along photos of what is, with hindsight, clearly an Xbox One. The first was of the console itself, complete with a QR code that led to a Microsoft confidential page. A second showed the return instructions -- a cute comic, complete with Xbox branding. Another showed a mess of cables in the box it was shipped in. The final image was the killer -- the box plugged into a TV, displaying a logo saying "Kryptos," a known in-house term for Microsoft's next generation console.
This tip sparked a back-and-forth between editors trying to ascertain the veracity of the tip. As the gaming-focused editor on staff, Gilbert was copied in on this discussion, and together with other editors decided the photos looked legitimate. Gilbert and other editors then spoke on the phone with Li to try and gather more information. Eventually, the story told in yesterday's article was revealed -- this console had been shipped to Li accidentally after he ordered a laptop. It had supposedly come directly from Microsoft.
At some point -- the exact timeline is unclear, but this was within the first 24 hours -- Li asked Engadget to buy the console. Engadget refused to pay, and Li was informed of his legal position should he sell the console. Li was asked for more photos and information on the device.
During this period, Li became uncomfortable with Engadget publishing the photos he'd originally sent, apparently fearing legal repercussions. Engadget reassured him that, as he was not under a nondisclosure agreement and had not obtained the console in an illegal manner, taking and sharing photos of it was perfectly legal. Li would still not take more photos without Engadget buying the console. It's not entirely clear if Li did eventually consent to the photos being published, and he did not respond to a request for comment. What is clear is that a decision was eventually made by then Editor-in-Chief Tim Stevens to not publish the images at all, rendering Li's consent somewhat irrelevant.
Li, still fearing legal action, decided he wanted to return the prototype. He took Stevens up on an offer to facilitate contact with Microsoft. Stevens is unclear on the exact details of the many conversations that took place, but helped handle the negotiation with the understanding that Li would "be relieved of any legal concerns by handing it over, and would receive some sort of reward from Microsoft." I'm told that Stevens negotiated this at Li's request, and received those assurances before putting Microsoft in touch with the source. Stevens also showed me an email where Li agreed to be put in touch with Microsoft.
Despite arguably being in Li's best interests, negotiating the return was characterized by those involved as a primarily tactical decision for Engadget. The terms of the agreement aren't available to me, but, according to comments made to Kotaku, the site was guaranteed an exclusive that would run the day the console was announced. I was told that Gilbert initially argued the decision, but after discussion agreed that it was better to negotiate an exclusive with Microsoft than run "some blurry photos."
Speaking by phone, Stevens confirmed many details in this report, but cautioned that it wasn't solely for the sake [of an] exclusive that the decision was made. "I know it might sound like a line to say that I was worried about a source, but I was genuinely worried. Selling the console would have put him on extremely shaky ground legally. This wasn't long after the iPhone 4 leak, and it was looking likely that he would sell the console to another publication, and get himself in serious trouble. I would never 'sell out' a source, and we had a duty to protect Li in this case."
An ethical unboxing
After speaking to almost everyone involved, I have a pretty clear idea of what went down in 2013. And now Engadget readers do too. I have strong feelings about all this, but first want to discuss the way in which this story was made public. As should be clear, this all came about from a tip sent to Engadget, and although Gilbert was involved in researching the story, this was in his capacity as an employee here. In most journalistic contracts, there is a stipulation about not taking trade secrets with you to future employers. This was an Engadget story, Li was an Engadget contact and the terms of any agreement were most definitely private. To my understanding of the term, it was a trade secret.
It's difficult to take issue with this on a personal level, because I, like everyone else outside of a select few, wouldn't have known about it at all. But it's nonetheless very clear to me that Gilbert acted unethically in publishing his story, and it's disappointing that he agreed to not publish the photos in the first place.
Whether you agree with the manner in which this story was revealed, it doesn't take a degree in journalism to understand that mistakes were made in the handling of this tip. Engadget built its reputation on not caring about what others thought of it. In the 12 years since its formation, it's posted images, video and information from hundreds of tipsters just like Li.
This was a console that millions of the site's readers were excited to learn more about. Would they have learned a lot from these photos? Perhaps not, but often it can just take a single leak to open the floodgates. And Engadget readers should have had the opportunity to see them regardless. As soon as they were verified, work should have begun on a story for its readers.
That said, I understand not buying the console. First, there wasn't definitive proof that it was obtained legally. Second, even if it was acquired as suggested, there was no way to be sure that Microsoft wouldn't be able to locate Li through its shipping records and prosecute him. As well as a duty to their readers, journalists have a duty to protect their sources. To buy the console would have been both legally and ethically questionable.
Engadget made a similar call two years earlier, when it was offered the now-infamous iPhone 4 prototype and refused to buy it. Gizmodo did, and ran with the story, but the key difference between the iPhone 4 and Xbox One is that Engadget did actually publish some blurry photos of the phone. Two days before Gizmodo's story went live, then Editor-in-Chief Joshua Topolsky ran the story "iPhone 4G: is this it?" with photos tipped to Engadget.
It's clear that Microsoft rewarded Engadget for not publishing photos of the Xbox One. To me this stinks of access journalism, but it's been suggested by people involved that the decision was more about not burning bridges with the company before a major product launch. And that's perhaps an even bigger disappointment. Engadget's job is not to care about relationships with companies. Its job is to inform and entertain its readers, and it can do that with or without access to companies. To me, not burning bridges is at most giving a PR person a "heads up" before you publish something that's going to ruin their day.
Engadget's current Editor-in-Chief said publicly yesterday that "no company dictates what we publish on my watch." And in my two years here I've never been discouraged from publishing negative articles about companies, even though those articles have negatively affected the site's relationships with certain companies. To be clear, this isn't something to be proud of. This is just journalism.
Regardless of how it came about, the fact that the matter is public now is a good thing. Li's story itself is a fascinating anecdote, and shining a light on the sort of deals that are made in the name of access journalism is important. We now know that three years ago, ex-Engadget employees made a poor call on what to publish. We must work hard to ensure that never happens again.
